> Chicago has a city budget of $12 billion this year with a population almost exactly three times higher. What in the hell are they spending money on? 1) San F

> Chicago has a city budget of $12 billion this year with a population almost exactly three times higher. What in the hell are they spending money on? 1) San Francisco has a unified city-county government. The combined Chicago-Cook County budget is ~$20 billion. 2) San Francisco's budget includes both its public transportation agency (SFMTA) as well as its international airport (SFO). I'm not sure about Chicago, but I think Chicago's budget includes its two airports (ORD, MDW), but not CTA. Cook County's budget doesn't seem to include CTA, either. Airports generally pay for themselves (at least these 3 seem to), so they inflate headline budget numbers but are otherwise irrelevant. However, public transportation (including in SF) is usually a significant net cost. 3) The cost of living in San Francisco is much higher and therefore government pay scales in San Francisco are some of the highest in the country. Of course, many people choose to live far outside the city, but the pay still needs to compensate for the commute. OTOH, San Francisco's budget DOES NOT include its K-12 public school system. (AFAIU, all school systems in California are separate entities principally funded by the state.) Chicago's budget DOES seem to include its K-12 public schools. Fortunately, many of San Fransisco's discretionary expenditures are elastic, both due to their nature (e.g. homeless outreach) as well as SF's comparatively good public union relations. Next year's budget was scaled back by $1.2 billion ($13.6 -> $12.4).